The Proof of God’s Existence

Life is a proof-function i that instantiates a type, configurations h of signs,l:h.

There’s a tension within this instantiation: the sign configuration is what appears obvious, while the proof is subtle. You can always see where you are, but it’s difficult to recall how you got there. The tension is between the obvious, conscious world of sign configuration and the subtle, unconscious space of proof, movement, reconfiguration. Between product and algorithm. It’s a sexual tension of invisibility and repression, because signs are a manifestation of their underlying proofs that must repress the intensionality of their derivation in order to assert the extensionality of their “Truth”.

Each configuration is a totem, a fetish: a cultural over-valuation, whose libidinous crystalization derives its base currency from the yesod of the colon in the relationship, l:c.

A religious person stand in relation to God/Truth. This standing-in-relation is what is subtle, but is ignored in favour of the “God/Truth”. For example, they can read God’s word within a configuration of signs, within their preferred holy book. What does the religious person believe? They believe there is no h but the h. They have faith in the h. They assert that man is created after the image, from the breath of the h. If they recognize the existence of a proof-function “i” — they consider it unimportant, subordinate — autobiography that perishes in the face of “h“. What’s the nature of their relation? One of believing, i:h, where h is God/Truth and i is life.

The point is: the h is apparition. “God” is a cultural totem, nothing more. An empty sign: but when filled by life, instantiated with proof, breathed through and enunciated — by the composition of the cosmic combinators of the mind, the totem emerges, derives its value.

In place of God and the religious configuration, we (personally) prefer the sublime self-reference, whose form is this:

i(h): h = “i:h”

so that the configuration of signs inhabited, refers to its own instantiation.

In addition, we assert that life feeds signage, via the conduit of the “:“. That crystallization is necessary, life demands excess and solidification into forms, into signs. However, in place of native, indigenous currencies/totem of which we (personally) have no loan, we prefer 1) meta-currencies, derivative transactions, futures and options, fetishized speculation upon the desires of the nations and 2) the base currency of the USD (Western Enlightenment’s conclusion).

And so our (personal) primal forms are those that are the excess and solidification into forms of self-reference, into the meta-totem“i:h”.

In place of faith in a divine being, we propose faith in the living proof, faith in the breath, faith in being, unfolding. A deprecation of “Truth” (“h”) in favour of being-as-process (“i”) and fetishization (“:”).

“i : h”

“i am truth”

“truth/pleasure am/fetishization i/being/process/libido”

The entities that emerge as a result of the process of living the proof, of breathing — these entities are essential to the process — but must emerge as secondary manifestations, authentically, culturally appropriate in their connection to the proof. We do not want a conflict between i and h — we need an authentic instantiation, not a mismatch (we don’t want the yesod to become inverted).

The proof of h/God’s existence is seen as something subordinate to God, to serve the religious man in his faith, his conversion agenda. When in fact the proof is the prime aspect — God/Truth is a manifestation of it.

And, personally, the proof that instantiates the nature of proofs: that meta-proof is our sublime.